Charities: National Minimum Wage

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The noble Lord rightly points to the 9.8% increase to the national living wage, a record cash increase of £1.02 an hour from 1 April, which will give a pay rise to around 3 million workers. He is also right to talk about the implications for organisations such as charities. As I mentioned in my first Answer, the Government have made available up to £8.6 billion to support local authorities with adult social care and discharge in the next financial year. That includes £500 million announced last month to support local authorities with the cost of social care. In addition, the accelerating reform fund for adult social care will invest £42.6 million for local projects focused on transforming the care sector. We are providing support to those who are providing important care to vulnerable people in our community.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, many early years providers are charities and voluntary organisations, including preschools and nurseries. Three-quarters of their costs are salaries, and many of their employees are on the national minimum wage. Since 2017 the national minimum wage has gone up by more than 50% but the funding rate from local authorities has gone up by 21%, undermining the viability of those organisations at the very time when entitlement to free childcare is going up. Will my noble friend the Minister make representations to the relevant department to see that the funding rates are increased, so that those organisations can continue to provide a quality service?

Dormant Assets (Distribution of Money) (England) Order 2023

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I have been following the issue of dormant assets principally in relation to the 2022 Act. My concern has always been to emphasise that this is not free money; it is somebody’s money and out there there are people—some may no longer be around—and the primary objective of restoring the money should always be in our minds. That is why I have followed closely the progress of the Act and these regulations.

I have a few questions for the Minister. First, one of the main points of the Act was to include orphan pension assets. Does this order arise because of those additional assets, or is something still coming down the road? It would be useful to have some indication of the relationship between them. I make it clear that I do not oppose the order; my concern relates to the issue of additionality. What we always want is for this money to be doing things which would not otherwise be done, but which could—and should—be done by public authorities. By way of definition, the Explanatory Memorandum says that a community wealth fund

“will give local people the power to make decisions about how to improve their neighbourhood and community”.

That is where the issue of additionality becomes difficult to assess. Are these things which the local authority, central government or other bodies should be doing in any event? Can the Minister give us some assurances on the issue of additionality?

On the question of restoring the money to the individuals who really own it, during the passage of the Act there was some discussion of the pensions dashboard. It has got bogged down and is taking much longer to appear than anticipated, but it illustrates the complexity and difficulties as to what priority the Government are prepared to give to the restoration of assets to their real owners, rather than to the orphan assets fund. Is this issue being discussed, either generally or in the context of this order?

Finally, what responsibility do the Government have? What supervision do they employ over how this money is being used? Do they just hand it over, wave it goodbye and feel they no longer have any further responsibility; or do they accept responsibility, despite the advisory bodies and the contracts they have with the bodies that distribute the money? What responsibility do the Government accept for overseeing this money? I always make that point in this context. My experience, having been responsible for distributing grants along these lines, is that it is all too easy to give capital grants but to pay insufficient attention to the revenue consequences of doing so. Do the Government recognise this issue? What responsibility do they have to ensure that we do not encounter problems?

Finally, on the issue of the reserve ratio, which was raised, during the passage of the Act I had some correspondence with the grant-giving body and I was not entirely clear about the basis on which the ratio was decided. Further explanation could be given and further time devoted by the Minister in his crowded schedule to assessing the reserve ratio, to see that it is set at a proper level.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene with some trepidation on this subject because, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson, who have clearly lived with this subject for some time, my interest has essentially been dormant. Then I got an email from Big Society Capital, which I am sure we all got, which drew my attention to the SI. In one of the quieter moments during consideration of the levelling up Bill yesterday, I picked up the SI and followed some of the links.

I have no difficulty with the policy at all—it is a very successful policy—but a number of questions arose in my mind. The first was about the public consultation, referred to in Paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which in turn led to the SI before us confirming the original three objectives but adding an extra one. I read the consultation document, which was structured in such a way that it inevitably led to the conclusion we have arrived at. The first question it asked was whether it was right to continue to support the three objectives we are now supporting. Then there was a long list of some very successful projects, which no one could disagree with at all. After that was another section on what would happen if support was cut off—and then, obviously, there would be a lot of disappointment. At the end of that, when one’s mind was already predisposed towards supporting the three existing ones, was another question, asking whether wealth management should be added; and then it set out all the benefits of including wealth management. Right at the end, the document asked about other objectives. The consultation showed that there was no consensus at all about any other objectives, so it concluded that they should carry on with these three and add the extra one.

The question raised in my mind was that the original three objectives were set out in 2008, 15 years ago. Are they really the same objectives that we should be applying today? Instead of the review starting off with a preconceived notion of carrying on from where we are, should it not have started with a totally blank piece of paper? A whole lot of issues have arisen that simply were not around in 2008, such as childhood obesity and non-attendance at schools, social harms from the media and increased awareness of the environment. I was slightly worried when my noble friend said, in introducing this measure, that the objectives would go on for the next decade and beyond. I hope that there will be another review, and perhaps he will say that the next one will be slightly more open-ended than the one that has just concluded, to take account of the fact that we now live in a different world and the priorities of objectives may well have changed.

That was the first thing that struck me. The second thing was what my noble friend said about the reserve ratio. Some 40% of the money in the reclaim fund is retained. That may have been right at the beginning, when no one knew exactly what was going to happen, but all the banks and financial institutions that have signed up to this scheme voluntarily follow a protocol to identify who owns the assets—and it is quite a rigorous protocol. After 15 years, if no one has claimed it, the money goes to the reclaim fund, which then retains 40%. I was reading the Government’s response to the consultation document, which came out in May. It says that

“only a small percentage do so”—

in other words, claim the money from the reclaim fund. It went on to say that there were

“consistently low levels of reclaims following transfer”.

If so, why on earth are they sitting on 40% of the money, given that it is hundreds of millions of pounds that could go through to worthwhile causes.

This proposition may be too much for my noble friend but, if you lose the deeds of your house or your share certificates, you can take out an insurance policy, which is actually quite cost effective, to insure yourself against somebody else suddenly popping up with the deeds of the House or the share certificates that were yours. Have the Government considered insuring themselves—or the reclaim fund insuring itself—against these claims? How many Rip Van Winkles are there are out there waiting to claim their money after 15 years? If they could insure themselves against that small minority of claims, all the money could be released.

Related to that second point, the document says that a portion of the money is invested. Are the Government happy to see hundreds of millions of pounds held in gilt-edged securities to help them with their borrowing requirement, rather than having that money paid out to voluntary organisations? My noble friend may not want to go down that path, but what is done with that money, the hundreds of millions of pounds that it says is invested? What is it invested in?

I have two final points. I think the scheme was recently extended to include pension funds. Has that money started flowing in? This point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Are there plans to extend access to the scheme to any more institutions, which would obviously require primary legislation?

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 205 and will speak to the seven other government amendments in this group. In doing so, I thank your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its scrutiny of the Bill, which has informed these amendments in my noble friend’s name.

Amendments 205 and 206 will replace the Henry VIII power to add to, remove from or amend the list of excluded areas under new Section 61QC with a power to specify or describe additional excluded areas in regulations. Amendments 207 and 208 will replace the Henry VIII power to add to, remove from or amend the list of excluded development under new Section 61QH with a power to specify or describe in regulations additional excluded development. Amendment 211 removes the power to make regulations excluding the application of Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to planning permission granted by a street vote development order. This power will permit modification only of the application of statutory biodiversity net gain requirements. These amendments address specific recommendations made in the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

In addition, to address the general points made by the committee, Amendments 209 and 210 will also remove the remaining Henry VIII power in new Section 61QI to add to, amend or remove requirements from the list of requirements that planning conditions requiring a Section 106 obligation must meet, with a power to prescribe additional requirements in regulations. Amendment 213 specifies that the three new regulation-making powers replacing the Henry VIII powers will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

I hope these amendments demonstrate the seriousness with which the Government take the question of appropriate delegation and the recommendations of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I commend them to the House.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 212 and 214 to 216 in my name. Earlier today, I spoke on what I regard as the most important clause in the Bill, and I will now speak briefly on what I regard as the least important clause, which is perhaps why there was a mass exodus before we reached this group.

We return now to the subject of street votes, on which I expressed my views forcefully in Committee. The ensuing debate on my amendments exhibited little enthusiasm for this policy—indeed, there was a large degree of suspicion and scepticism from those who spoke, all of whom had a background in local government, which would have to operate the policy.

I think it would be fair to say that a number of key questions remained unanswered, as the policy was clearly work in progress. For example, neither in the debate nor in the letter that my noble friend subsequently wrote was he able to say what a “street” was, what the policy might cost or who would pay. It turned out that a short-term tenant in a property would have a vote, but the owner would not. A street vote could overturn a recently adopted neighbourhood plan or district plan, and there would be no requirement for affordable housing. Many questions were answered with the reply that this was a matter for consultation.

My noble friend Lord Howe shipped a fair amount of water when he wound up the debate on 20 April. He wrote to me after the debate on 10 July and, although I would never accuse my noble friend of insincerity, when he ended his letter by saying that he “looked forward” to considering this measure further with me as we moved to the next stage of the Bill, he may have had his tongue in his cheek.

In a nutshell, the policy of allowing street votes to determine planning applications was shoehorned into the Bill at a late stage: on Report in the other place. It was fast-tracked from the bubbling vat of a think tank into primary legislation, with no Green Paper and no consultation with the LGA, the TCPA or the public. On the way, it displaced the placeholder in the Bill for the abolition of the Vagrancy Act, which, by contrast, had been extensively consulted on and had all-party approval.

Not only is the policy heroically unready for legislation, but it sits uneasily with the thrust of the Bill, which is to inject certainty into the planning process. The LGA has opposed it and it was panned by the DPRR committee, which wanted whole sections of the clause removed—which has not happened, although I welcome the changes that my noble friend has announced.

I was confused by the explanatory notes to government Amendments 205 and 206, which seem to contradict each other. Amendment 205

“confers a regulation-making power on the Secretary of State to specify or describe other areas to be excluded from the remit of street vote development orders”.

Amendment 206

“removes the power to add, amend or remove an area which is excluded from the remit of street vote development orders”.

I am sure there is an explanation and I would be happy to get it in a letter, but the amendments, however interpreted, reinforce the original objection of the DPRRC, which said of these clauses:

“A common thread runs through them all: in each case, we consider that the power relates to matters that are too significant in policy terms to be left to be determined by regulations”.


The power in one of the amendments could, in effect, designate the whole of England as excluded from the remit of street vote development orders and at a stroke cancel the policy.

Telecommunications (Security) Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 29th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her clear and convincing explanation of the need for this Bill, which I support. I have a possible interest as a beneficiary of the British Telecom pension scheme but, as it was a nationalised industry when I worked for it and our main preoccupation was the introduction of subscriber trunk dialling in the 1960s, I fear that much of my knowledge of the technical side of the telecommunications industry is 60 years out of date.

I mention in passing the report by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which says, on the power in Clause 3, that the committee is unconvinced by the department’s case and recommends a negative procedure for the code of practice. That seems to me to be a concession that the Government could consider. I noticed with approval the Minister’s conciliatory response when she spoke about the committee’s report.

There are three issues I want to raise briefly. The first concerns whether the Secretary of State’s directions and designations under the Bill are justiciable and whether issues of national security could end up being decided not by Ministers but by the courts. For example, could a potential supplier, such as Huawei, assert that there was no risk to national security in any ministerial designation, that decisions were being taken to protect domestic suppliers and that no reasonable Secretary of State could have reached such a conclusion and seek an injunction? In which case, despite the passage of the Bill, we would find that there was extensive and time-consuming litigation, during which time investment in telecoms infrastructure would be frozen and potential security issues would be ventilated in the courts. Can my noble friend say that every precaution has been taken to avoid such a scenario?

Related to this is whether the Secretary of State has to give reasons for his decisions. We are told in the Explanatory Notes:

“Designations and directions may only be made in the interests of national security.”


Paragraph 35 then sets out the factors that the Secretary of State will take into account, which presumably could give ammunition to a potential litigant. Subsection (5) of new Section 105Z1 of the Communications Act 2003 inserted by Clause 15 says:

“A designated vendor direction must specify … the reasons for the direction”.


However, the next subsection says that “specifying reasons” need not be given if it

“would be contrary to the interests of national security”,

while, in new subsection (2)(1) we are told that a direction can be given only

“in the interests of national security”.

So, we seem to be going round in circles. I wonder whether my noble friend can shed some light on this paradox.

My second question relates to responsibility for telecommunications security within the Government. The Explanatory Notes tell us:

“The security of telecoms infrastructure needs to be considered within an international context”


and we read how cyberwarfare is going to displace conventional warfare. The powers given to the Government in the Bill to protect the integrity of our communications network rest with DCMS but, at the moment, the Secretary of State is not on the National Security Council, which to me seems a surprising omission. The National Cyber Security Centre, whose work is central to the operation of the Bill, is part of GCHQ, which reports to the Foreign Secretary. The Cyber and Government Security Directorate sits within the Cabinet Office, leading on the co-ordination and delivery of the classified national security risk assessment, which assesses the most significant risks to the UK. When I answered Questions for the Cabinet Office in Your Lordships’ House, I had to answer Questions about Huawei—or, if I did not answer them, I at least replied to them. Finally, a significant proportion of telecommunications research is led and funded by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and its external bodies, such as UK Research and Innovation and Innovate UK, report to BEIS. Can my noble friend explain, perhaps in a letter, the inner wiring of responsibility for dealing with cyberwarfare between the FCDO, the Cabinet Office, the MoD, BEIS and DCMS?

My last point concerns the ambition to create one of the toughest security regimes in the world and set up the UK as a global leader in the telecoms supply chain, a point made by my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes. I very much welcome this. Other countries in the free world face the same challenges as the UK in protecting the integrity of their national networks and others are reducing their dependence on Huawei. So, there is a real opportunity here to win new markets, create fresh investment and employment in the UK on the back of this Bill and build back better. To what extent is the UK liaising with other countries to ensure that the standards—the codes of practice mentioned in the Bill—are recognised by other countries, so that the new supply chains that we plan to create in the UK enable us to penetrate new markets? Can my noble friend amplify what she told us in her letter of 2 June about the steps we are taking to set up the UK as a global leader in this field? What progress has been made in attracting new suppliers to the UK market? What is the follow-up to the telecoms diversification task force under my noble friend Lord Livingston? It reported in April with a wide range of recommendations: the co-ordination of government activity, a targeted international engagement strategy, joint working on standards and buy-in by other countries.

I conclude by quoting from that report—-:

“It is therefore essential that the UK coordinates its efforts with like-minded nations and focuses investment in areas that can succeed on an international, not national scale. … If the Government is to move the dial towards the UK’s long-term vision for the market, it will require buy-in and support from a critical mass of nations.”


I have not seen a government response to those thoughtful and wide-ranging recommendations. Perhaps, again in a letter, my noble friend could set out how we plan to build on the recommendations in that report.

With these comments, I wish my noble friend well as she pilots this Bill on to the statute book.